Read on Twitter
On the surface: @NathanJRobinson who dresses like this unsurprisingly has a very Conservative and common viewpoint: he likes preserving old capitalist development. He tries to justify it from the left and throws out 'social housing' as a cover.
But the issue is deeper. https://twitter.com/curaffairs/status/1347965569216241670
But the issue is deeper. https://twitter.com/curaffairs/status/1347965569216241670
Old strawmans like yimbys want the abolition of all planning. Which is not true, yimbys support ending regs made for aesthetics that have consistently created housing scarcity and homelessness where used.
@NathanJRobinson knows this, which is why he cited op-eds, not research
@NathanJRobinson knows this, which is why he cited op-eds, not research
But the issue is his inherent belief that if you support more housing in your neighborhood, you're insidious, but if you oppose it you're a true democratic neighbor. Like Trump: it's only democracy when I win. NIMBYism in reality, spends half its time opposing tenants.
A better article would've discussed:
A) Nimbyism that was actually good like opposing freeways, something YIMBYs do today
B) How much ownership does a resident have over their neighborhood? Does that extend to segregation? Opposition to public housing? Banning tenants?
A) Nimbyism that was actually good like opposing freeways, something YIMBYs do today
B) How much ownership does a resident have over their neighborhood? Does that extend to segregation? Opposition to public housing? Banning tenants?
I'm also a fan of old capitalist real estate development like Victorians, craftsmans and brownstones. I'd like to see some preserved while balancing the need to add residents amid scarcity.
But also, pro-nuclear family zoning restricting land to one family helps no one.
But also, pro-nuclear family zoning restricting land to one family helps no one.
At no point does @NathanJRobinson talk about the land use practices in those social housing cities. Because those cities know housing costs are land and location, and scarcity enables inequality.
No pondering of the opposition they could (and have) face in American neighborhoods
No pondering of the opposition they could (and have) face in American neighborhoods
Supply-and-Demand is not some fictitious theory in Vienna the way some leftists act like it is when refuting yimbys. They understand it well. Everyone fears the 20-year waitlists for a home Stockholm. They try to build housing, a lot of it, and deal with NIMBYs too.
The reason Vienna and Singapore use social housing is not because they reject supply and demand, it's because they think the public sector can satisfy housing supply better than the private one. An argument with merit
Land + Location + Scarcity = Rents. Not the type of building.
Land + Location + Scarcity = Rents. Not the type of building.
Refutations from moderates that public housing failed in the U.S. are wrong.
Singapore is slum free. 80% of the public lives and buys (99 yr lease) government housing. All-Income public services create collective stake and reduce subsidy-dependency by creating public revenue
Singapore is slum free. 80% of the public lives and buys (99 yr lease) government housing. All-Income public services create collective stake and reduce subsidy-dependency by creating public revenue
Public housing in the US became a slur because of white flight and disinvestment. The same issues you saw with projects you also saw with private housing. Thats not public housing's fault, its American segregation's fault.
Also something Nathan missed in his preservation defense
Also something Nathan missed in his preservation defense
